A Critique on Block on Abortion

[equality72521]

There is absolutely no possibility of consciousness prior to quickening. The nerve circuits which develope an integrated body awareness require positive feedback from muscle movement to integrate themselves. We can allow abortion pre-quickening without fear of destroying a person. Premies bely the idea that something happens at 9 months other than a change of address.

Ted

You have not yet addressed the question of personhood which I have raised. Personhood does not begin until self awareness which is the point of quickening.

personhood requires personality which is not possible until selfawareness which requires the slate to be filled with enough data for the subject to be able to distinguish between self and others.

Robert, people in comas can breath on their own even if they are legally brain dead. Your position is absurd, and indefensible. While I now respect Ted for his consistency (though he is not fully consistent yet.) Your position is clearly a position looking for a justification.

[kiaer.ts]

There is absolutely no possibility of consciousness prior to quickening. The nerve circuits which develope an integrated body awareness require positive feedback from muscle movement to integrate themselves. We can allow abortion pre-quickening without fear of destroying a person. Premies bely the idea that something happens at 9 months other than a change of address.

Ted

You have not yet addressed the question of personhood which I have raised. Personhood does not begin until self awareness which is the point of quickening.

personhood requires personality which is not possible until selfawareness which requires the slate to be filled with enough data for the subject to be able to distinguish between self and others.

I don't get your point.

[equality72521]

There is absolutely no possibility of consciousness prior to quickening. The nerve circuits which develope an integrated body awareness require positive feedback from muscle movement to integrate themselves. We can allow abortion pre-quickening without fear of destroying a person. Premies bely the idea that something happens at 9 months other than a change of address.

Ted

You have not yet addressed the question of personhood which I have raised. Personhood does not begin until self awareness which is the point of quickening.

personhood requires personality which is not possible until selfawareness which requires the slate to be filled with enough data for the subject to be able to distinguish between self and others.

I don't get your point.

my point is that quickening does not occur simply because of muscle spasms or primal body movement. quickening occurs at when personhood begins which cannot begin until there is identity which cannot occur until self awareness. until there there is no such thing as a person but only a body without mind. at best it is an animal who should be given no more than concern than a puppy you would put down.

[kiaer.ts]

There is absolutely no possibility of consciousness prior to quickening. The nerve circuits which develope an integrated body awareness require positive feedback from muscle movement to integrate themselves. We can allow abortion pre-quickening without fear of destroying a person. Premies bely the idea that something happens at 9 months other than a change of address.

Ted

You have not yet addressed the question of personhood which I have raised. Personhood does not begin until self awareness which is the point of quickening.

personhood requires personality which is not possible until selfawareness which requires the slate to be filled with enough data for the subject to be able to distinguish between self and others.

I don't get your point.

my point is that quickening does not occur simply because of muscle spasms or primal body movement. quickening occurs at when personhood begins which cannot begin until there is identity which cannot occur until self awareness. until there there is no such thing as a person but only a body without mind. at best it is an animal who should be given no more than concern than a puppy you would put down.

I am sorry, but now I am even more confused. Can you break down what you think happens in simple sentences. preferably in order from first to last temporally?

For instance, I believe, roughly:

Limbs and muscles develop.

Nerves grow out from the spine to the various muscles, as well as into the brain.

The muscles begin to twitch due to local electrical activity, and various sense cells to fire due to physical stimulus.

And now the nerves, which in part by chance, have grown to connect, say, the right hand, to a part of the brain that maps to the sensorimotor-homonculus, are strengthened by feedback, as motion and sensation of motion set up a feedback loop.

While nerves which accidentally connect the hand to the auditory cortex die due to lack of feedback.

And more and more highly integrated systems of motion and sensation develop from the bottom up.

Leading eventually to high level unification of pain and pleasure and sense and motion and memory systems as a unified self.

Since the body maps necessary for the emergence of a self, which is the unified sensation and coordination of the body, cannot exist prior to this integration,

There can be no person prior to the spontaneous movement of the limbs.

Hence no person, no hierarchically unified mental entity, exists before the limbs move in a way coordinated by the brain, instead of just local muscle twitches.

Also, I don't get your point with the puppy. What does a puppy lack that a fetus has?

Edited October 17, 2010 by Ted Keer

[equality72521]

I am sorry, but now I am even more confused. Can you break down what you think happens in simple sentences. preferably in order from first to last temporally?

For instance, I believe, roughly:

Limbs and muscles develop.

Nerves grow out from the spine to the various muscles, as well as into the brain.

The muscles begin to twitch due to local electrical activity, and various sense cells to fire due to physical stimulus.

And now the nerves, which in part by chance, have grown to connect, say, the right hand, to a part of the brain that maps to the sensorimotor-homonculus, are strengthened by feedback, as motion and sensation of motion set up a feedback loop.

While nerves which accidentally connect the hand to the auditory cortex die due to lack of feedback.

And more and more highly integrated systems of motion and sensation develop from the bottom up.

Leading eventually to high level unification of pain and pleasure and sense and motion and memory systems as a unified self.

Since the body maps necessary for the emergence of a self, which is the unified sensation and coordination of the body, cannot exist prior to this integration,

There can be no person prior to the spontaneous movement of the limbs.

Hence no person, no hierarchically unified mental entity, exists before the limbs move in a way coordinated by the brain, instead of just local muscle twitches.

Also, I don't get your point with the puppy. What does a puppy lack that a fetus has?

The problem is that you are still stuck on the fetus. When a frog dies and you electrocute a limb the limb moves, movement of body parts does not mean personhood. personhood requires identity, while all that you said is true and is indeed a prerequisite of personhood it is not itself personhood.

A one month old posses no identity, no self-awareness which is the pivotal point of identity. A one month old has no more self-awareness than a puppy possibly less. So what I am saying is that until the infant posses a level of awareness greater than that of an animal there should be no problem putting it down.

[kiaer.ts]

I am sorry, but now I am even more confused. Can you break down what you think happens in simple sentences. preferably in order from first to last temporally?

For instance, I believe, roughly:

Limbs and muscles develop.

Nerves grow out from the spine to the various muscles, as well as into the brain.

The muscles begin to twitch due to local electrical activity, and various sense cells to fire due to physical stimulus.

And now the nerves, which in part by chance, have grown to connect, say, the right hand, to a part of the brain that maps to the sensorimotor-homonculus, are strengthened by feedback, as motion and sensation of motion set up a feedback loop.

While nerves which accidentally connect the hand to the auditory cortex die due to lack of feedback.

And more and more highly integrated systems of motion and sensation develop from the bottom up.

Leading eventually to high level unification of pain and pleasure and sense and motion and memory systems as a unified self.

Since the body maps necessary for the emergence of a self, which is the unified sensation and coordination of the body, cannot exist prior to this integration,

There can be no person prior to the spontaneous movement of the limbs.

Hence no person, no hierarchically unified mental entity, exists before the limbs move in a way coordinated by the brain, instead of just local muscle twitches.

Also, I don't get your point with the puppy. What does a puppy lack that a fetus has?

The problem is that you are still stuck on the fetus. When a frog dies and you electrocute a limb the limb moves, movement of body parts does not mean personhood. personhood requires identity, while all that you said is true and is indeed a prerequisite of personhood it is not itself personhood.

A one month old posses no identity, no self-awareness which is the pivotal point of identity. A one month old has no more self-awareness than a puppy possibly less. So what I am saying is that until the infant posses a level of awareness greater than that of an animal there should be no problem putting it down.

The problem is not that I am stuck on anything. The problem is that you are not making coherent statements relatable to concrete facts. Contradicting me doesn't amount to explaining yourself. Please just do what I asked and give your own version of the relevant developmental timeline and what you think are the relevant issues.

[equality72521]

I am sorry, but now I am even more confused. Can you break down what you think happens in simple sentences. preferably in order from first to last temporally?

For instance, I believe, roughly:

Limbs and muscles develop.

Nerves grow out from the spine to the various muscles, as well as into the brain.

The muscles begin to twitch due to local electrical activity, and various sense cells to fire due to physical stimulus.

And now the nerves, which in part by chance, have grown to connect, say, the right hand, to a part of the brain that maps to the sensorimotor-homonculus, are strengthened by feedback, as motion and sensation of motion set up a feedback loop.

While nerves which accidentally connect the hand to the auditory cortex die due to lack of feedback.

And more and more highly integrated systems of motion and sensation develop from the bottom up.

Leading eventually to high level unification of pain and pleasure and sense and motion and memory systems as a unified self.

Since the body maps necessary for the emergence of a self, which is the unified sensation and coordination of the body, cannot exist prior to this integration,

There can be no person prior to the spontaneous movement of the limbs.

Hence no person, no hierarchically unified mental entity, exists before the limbs move in a way coordinated by the brain, instead of just local muscle twitches.

Also, I don't get your point with the puppy. What does a puppy lack that a fetus has?

The problem is that you are still stuck on the fetus. When a frog dies and you electrocute a limb the limb moves, movement of body parts does not mean personhood. personhood requires identity, while all that you said is true and is indeed a prerequisite of personhood it is not itself personhood.

A one month old posses no identity, no self-awareness which is the pivotal point of identity. A one month old has no more self-awareness than a puppy possibly less. So what I am saying is that until the infant posses a level of awareness greater than that of an animal there should be no problem putting it down.

The problem is not that I am stuck on anything. The problem is that you are not making coherent statements relatable to concrete facts. Contradicting me doesn't amount to explaining yourself. Please just do what I asked and give your own version of the relevant developmental timeline and what you think are the relevant issues.

Definitions:

* A person is someone who has the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.

*The ability to make rational decisions is what differentiates personhood from non-personhood.

*When the infant reaches that threshold of self awareness greater than an animal they are then disqualified from post-term abortions.

*There is a specific threshold which an infant reaches (at 20 months) where their level of awareness is greater than that of an animal.

*Until an infant reaches said level of development they can be put down just like any animal.

[BaalChatzaf]

Definitions:

* A person is someone who has the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.

*The ability to make rational decisions is what differentiates personhood from non-personhood.

*When the infant reaches that threshold of self awareness greater than an animal they are then disqualified from post-term abortions.

*There is a specific threshold which an infant reaches (at 20 months) where their level of awareness is greater than that of an animal.

Bad definition. I was talking at 12 months of age. One of my grandchildren was talking at 11 months of age. The only talking animal (in the sense of making sense with speech) is the human.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Definitions:

* A person is someone who has the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.

*The ability to make rational decisions is what differentiates personhood from non-personhood.

*When the infant reaches that threshold of self awareness greater than an animal they are then disqualified from post-term abortions.

*There is a specific threshold which an infant reaches (at 20 months) where their level of awareness is greater than that of an animal.

*Until an infant reaches said level of development they can be put down just like any animal.

That's a lot clearer. Could you clarify the rational part? Can we kill the insane, or people who fail certain tests?

[BaalChatzaf]

x

That's a lot clearer. Could you clarify the rational part? Can we kill the insane, or people who fail certain tests?

Only in self defense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

x

That's a lot clearer. Could you clarify the rational part? Can we kill the insane, or people who fail certain tests?

Only in self defense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Or when the speak when not spoken to?

[equality72521]

Definitions:

* A person is someone who has the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.

*The ability to make rational decisions is what differentiates personhood from non-personhood.

*When the infant reaches that threshold of self awareness greater than an animal they are then disqualified from post-term abortions.

*There is a specific threshold which an infant reaches (at 20 months) where their level of awareness is greater than that of an animal.

Bad definition. I was talking at 12 months of age. One of my grandchildren was talking at 11 months of age. The only talking animal (in the sense of making sense with speech) is the human.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Parrot

[equality72521]

Definitions:

* A person is someone who has the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.

*The ability to make rational decisions is what differentiates personhood from non-personhood.

*When the infant reaches that threshold of self awareness greater than an animal they are then disqualified from post-term abortions.

*There is a specific threshold which an infant reaches (at 20 months) where their level of awareness is greater than that of an animal.

*Until an infant reaches said level of development they can be put down just like any animal.

That's a lot clearer. Could you clarify the rational part? Can we kill the insane, or people who fail certain tests?

Your jumping too far ahead. The focus I am making is the distinction between Human and animal as the point of termination. If there is a problem with setting this as the definition of personhood why?

[BaalChatzaf]

Parrot

A parrot mimics sound. There is no evidence that a parrot comprehends what it is uttering. A parrot is a bird brain.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Definitions:

* A person is someone who has the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.

*The ability to make rational decisions is what differentiates personhood from non-personhood.

*When the infant reaches that threshold of self awareness greater than an animal they are then disqualified from post-term abortions.

*There is a specific threshold which an infant reaches (at 20 months) where their level of awareness is greater than that of an animal.

*Until an infant reaches said level of development they can be put down just like any animal.

That's a lot clearer. Could you clarify the rational part? Can we kill the insane, or people who fail certain tests?

Your jumping too far ahead. The focus I am making is the distinction between Human and animal as the point of termination. If there is a problem with setting this as the definition of personhood why?

Again, please answer my question and clarify yourself in a sequence of simple sentences. I am not arguing, so please do not argue back. I simply do not understand you and I need to if this is going to continue.

[kiaer.ts]

Parrot

A parrot mimics sound. There is no evidence that a parrot comprehends what it is uttering. A parrot is a bird brain.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Alex the Grey Parrot.

[BaalChatzaf]

Alex the Grey Parrot.

One smart parrot does not disprove that most parrots are bird brains. Parrots have very little brain mass. Whatever else is true, it takes a lot of brain mass to produce a conceptual mind.

That is why homo sapiens are by and large, the smart concept driven primate. We have the brain mass for it, particularly the kind of brain tissue that makes the cerebral cortex. We have more of that white wrinkled brain tissue per gram of body weight than any other mammal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Alex the Grey Parrot.

One smart parrot does not disprove that most parrots are bird brains. Parrots have very little brain mass. Whatever else is true, it takes a lot of brain mass to produce a conceptual mind.

That is why homo sapiens are by and large, the smart concept driven primate. We have the brain mass for it, particularly the kind of brain tissue that makes the cerebral cortex. We have more of that white wrinkled brain tissue per gram of body weight than any other mammal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Brain mass is one critical factor. Cortical organization is another. Primates have a six-layer neocortex whereas dolphins and whales have a 3-layer neocortex. This suggests that humans are capable of a higher level of conceptual organization. Also, in humans sensory and motor functions are integrated into the cortex so that thinking patterns more readily connect to sense data and body maps in a more global way.

Jim

[kiaer.ts]

Parrot

A parrot mimics sound. There is no evidence that a parrot comprehends what it is uttering. A parrot is a bird brain.

Alex the Grey Parrot.

One smart parrot does not disprove that most parrots are bird brains.

One valid counterexample disproves your false generalization. For a mathematicist, you are awful quick to abandon the rules of logic.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Ted Keer

[BaalChatzaf]

One valid counterexample disproves your false generalization. For a mathematicist, you are awful quick to abandon the rules of logic.

Alex may be smart as parrots go, but there is no evidence that he conceptualizes and deals in abstract thought. Alex may have learned a few tricks but that does not put him on a par with normal humans in the intellect department.

Now if Alex could squawk out a proof of a theorem in geometry that he never learned from a human, I might be inclined to change my mind on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

One valid counterexample disproves your false generalization. For a mathematicist, you are awful quick to abandon the rules of logic.

Alex may be smart as parrots go, but there is no evidence that he conceptualizes and deals in abstract thought. Alex may have learned a few tricks but that does not put him on a par with normal humans in the intellect department.

Now if Alex could squawk out a proof of a theorem in geometry that he never learned from a human, I might be inclined to change my mind on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Alex was quite able to use first level concepts of entities and their attributes, and second level concepts such as color and material, and to answer novel questions using them. Your current nonsense about theorems has nothing to do with the context of rationality and the rights of children, which you have dropped. You seem to be the arbitrarily squawking parrot here, unable to keep in mind a conversation of two exchanges or more.

[equality72521]

One valid counterexample disproves your false generalization. For a mathematicist, you are awful quick to abandon the rules of logic.

Alex may be smart as parrots go, but there is no evidence that he conceptualizes and deals in abstract thought. Alex may have learned a few tricks but that does not put him on a par with normal humans in the intellect department.

Now if Alex could squawk out a proof of a theorem in geometry that he never learned from a human, I might be inclined to change my mind on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Alex was quite able to use first level concepts of entities and their attributes, and second level concepts such as color and material, and to answer novel questions using them. Your current nonsense about theorems has nothing to do with the context of rationality and the rights of children, which you have dropped. You seem to be the arbitrarily squawking parrot here, unable to keep in mind a conversation of two exchanges or more.

Can you say that there is any difference between Alex and Jim (a one month old) intellectually? Also brain size v intelligence is in serious question I will attempt to find the National geographic article.

Something else exceptions do not prove the rule.

Edited October 18, 2010 by equality72521

[kiaer.ts]

One valid counterexample disproves your false generalization. For a mathematicist, you are awful quick to abandon the rules of logic.

Alex may be smart as parrots go, but there is no evidence that he conceptualizes and deals in abstract thought. Alex may have learned a few tricks but that does not put him on a par with normal humans in the intellect department.

Now if Alex could squawk out a proof of a theorem in geometry that he never learned from a human, I might be inclined to change my mind on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Alex was quite able to use first level concepts of entities and their attributes, and second level concepts such as color and material, and to answer novel questions using them. Your current nonsense about theorems has nothing to do with the context of rationality and the rights of children, which you have dropped. You seem to be the arbitrarily squawking parrot here, unable to keep in mind a conversation of two exchanges or more.

Can you say that there is any difference between Alex and Jim (a one month old) intellectually? Also brain size v intelligence is in serious question I will attempt to find the National geographic article.

Something else exceptions do not prove the rule.

What are you talking about?

[BaalChatzaf]

Can you say that there is any difference between Alex and Jim (a one month old) intellectually? Also brain size v intelligence is in serious question I will attempt to find the National geographic article.

Something else exceptions do not prove the rule.

One difference. Alex the Parrot will never be a person.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Can you say that there is any difference between Alex and Jim (a one month old) intellectually? Also brain size v intelligence is in serious question I will attempt to find the National geographic article.

Something else exceptions do not prove the rule.

One difference. Alex the Parrot will never be a person.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why not define your terms while you are at it? Such bald assertions are so boring one wonders why you bother to make them.